IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2020i1p129-d468971.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Grip Strength in Recreational Climbers and Non-Climbing Athletes—A Cross-Sectional Study

Author

Listed:
  • Mara Assmann

    (Department of Trauma, Orthopedics and Reconstructive Surgery, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, 37075 Goettingen, Germany)

  • Gino Steinmetz

    (Department of Trauma, Orthopedics and Reconstructive Surgery, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, 37075 Goettingen, Germany)

  • Arndt Friedrich Schilling

    (Department of Trauma, Orthopedics and Reconstructive Surgery, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, 37075 Goettingen, Germany)

  • Dominik Saul

    (Department of Trauma, Orthopedics and Reconstructive Surgery, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, 37075 Goettingen, Germany
    Kogod Center on Aging and Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA)

Abstract

In recent years, climbing sports is on the rise making its Olympic debut in 2021. Physiological traits of professional rock climbers have been intensively studied, while recreational indoor climbers are less investigated, especially regarding grip strength and upper extremity proportions. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to understand what discerns the recreational climber from disparate recreational athletes. Therefore, we analyzed 50 recreational climbing (30.3 ± 12.7 years, 1.76 ± 0.09 m and 67.0 ± 14.0 kg) and 50 non-climbing athletes (26.4 ± 9.1 years, 1.78 ± 0.09 m and 73.2 ± 12.6 kg) to detect differences in their finger grip strength of seven different pinches. In addition, the upper extremity proportions were measured. Even in recreational climbers, almost all analyzed grips were stronger compared to other athletes ( p < 0.05 in all but non-dominant fist, small to moderate effect sizes). Only the grip strength of the whole non-dominant hand was not significantly different ( p = 0.17). Interestingly, differences between the dominant and non-dominant hand appeared to be larger in the non-climbing (all p < 0.05, all but one with small effect size) compared to the climbing cohort (pinch I/IV and pinch I/II+III+IV not different and mostly trivial). Circumference measurements showed that 10 cm below the lateral epicondyle, climbers exhibited significantly greater perimeter compared to non-climbing athletes ( p < 0.05, small effect size). Our results show that recreational climbers have higher measured grip strength, but less profound differences between the dominant and non-dominant hand.

Suggested Citation

  • Mara Assmann & Gino Steinmetz & Arndt Friedrich Schilling & Dominik Saul, 2020. "Comparison of Grip Strength in Recreational Climbers and Non-Climbing Athletes—A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2020:i:1:p:129-:d:468971
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/1/129/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/1/129/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon Rauch & Bernd Wallner & Mathias Ströhle & Tomas Dal Cappello & Monika Brodmann Maeder, 2019. "Climbing Accidents—Prospective Data Analysis from the International Alpine Trauma Registry and Systematic Review of the Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-9, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin Burtscher & Martin Niedermeier & Hannes Gatterer, 2021. "Editorial on the Special Issue on “Mountain Sports Activities: Injuries and Prevention”," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-7, February.
    2. Christopher Rugg & Laura Tiefenthaler & Simon Rauch & Hannes Gatterer & Peter Paal & Mathias Ströhle, 2020. "Rock Climbing Emergencies in the Austrian Alps: Injury Patterns, Risk Analysis and Preventive Measures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-14, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2020:i:1:p:129-:d:468971. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.